By Simon Ngena

IN a recent tragic incident a Hwange woman — Loveness Ncube — was trampled by an elephant while collecting charcoal at a dumpsite. The severity of her injuries required immediate medical attention, but her struggle to secure funds for an ambulance to transport her to Mpilo Central Hospital in Bulawayo underscores the harsh realities faced by victims of human-wildlife conflicts.

Ncube’s death has sparked outrage and concern among the local community, who are calling for more comprehensive measures to address the increasing conflicts between humans and wildlife, particularly in the wake of climate change. As a result, Hwange residents, alongside environmental advocates, have renewed their calls for the urgent finalisation of the Parks and Wildlife Bill, which is currently under consideration.

The Bill is seen as a critical step in mitigating the dangers posed by wildlife in human-inhabited areas and providing necessary support to victims of such conflicts. Meanwhile, the Parks and Wildlife Act provides the legal framework for human-wildlife conflict. It recognises several human-wildlife issues, which include the killing of wildlife that is considered a danger to humans, in self-defence, in defence of another person, or to prevent the spread of disease, and to control damage to property and nuisance.

The main institutions responsible over human-wildlife conflicts are the Minister of Environment and Tourism, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, and all ‘appropriate authorities’ (AAs) for land and water, including the environment committees of the Rural District Councils (RDCs). The Act provides that in a national park, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority in concurrence with the minister may authorise the killing of an animal considered a danger to humans, or causing damage to property.

Further, the authority may authorise the killing of an animal for the purpose of controlling the spread of disease. Within alienated land, the minister in consultation with the environment committee of the RDC (also identified as ‘conservation committee’ by the Environment Management Act) may authorise the killing of animals that are causing excessive damage and nuisance.

The minister, acting in consultation with the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, has powers that extend over any land to restrict hunting of any animal, either indefinitely or over a specified time, in order to control the spread of disease or for the protection of human life and property. With regard to fishing, the AAs have the power to introduce any chemical into the water to control the spread of disease or to make the water suitable for human and animal consumption.

The Parks and Wildlife Act provides for the killing of wildlife without a permit only in self-defence or in defence of another person. Such killing should be immediately and absolutely necessary. The onus of proving that the animal was killed in self-defence or in defence of another person, and that it was immediately and absolutely necessary, falls on the person who killed the animal.

The Act makes it mandatory for any person who kills an animal in self-defence or in defence of another person to report such action in person within seven days of the occurrence to the AA for the land on which the animal was last sighted.

Alternatively, this action can be reported at the nearest convenient office of the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority or police station, or at the office of the local authority for the area concerned. The Act does not recognise the killing of wildlife in defence of property as a valid defence. Only the authority in concurrence with the minister, or the minister on the recommendation of, or after consultation with, the authority, or an environment committee of a RDC can authorise the killing of an animal causing excessive damage or nuisance.

It is important to note that the general provisions of the law in Zimbabwe do not allow for the killing of animals without a permit. However, the Parks and Wildlife Act also provides for the killing of animals causing damage to property, considered a danger to humans or causing nuisance, and in order to control disease.

The Act provides that, within national parks, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority with the concurrence of the minister may authorise the killing of an animal that is causing damage to property or that is a danger to humans. Further, the authority may take measures it considers necessary or desirable for the prevention and control of human and animal diseases, including domestic animal diseases, and the control and limitation of quelea birds and locusts.

The minister may also, on the recommendation of, or after consultation with, the authority, by notice in a statutory instrument, prohibit or restrict either indefinitely or for such period as may be specif ied in the notice, the hunting or removal of any animal or any specimen or sex of any animal or any part thereof in or from any area for the purpose of controlling the spread of disease.

An environment activity, Daniel Sithole, voiced his frustration on social media, highlighting the inequities in the current system. “A sad event occurred in Hwange when an elephant trampled Loveness Ncube. This emphasises how urgently the Bill needs to be amended in order to assist those who have been harmed by conflicts between people and wildlife. “The fact that wild animals have an ambulance but human victims do not have one is shocking. These conflicts will only grow more frequent as climate change becomes more severe,” Sithole posted on his X handle. Sithole’s comments reflect a broader concern that as climate change exacerbates the scarcity of resources, human-wildlife conflicts will likely increase, making it imperative for legislation to provide adequate protection and support for affected individuals.

The current situation, where wildlife receives prompt care while human victims struggle to access basic medical services, is seen as untenable and unjust. This incident has galvanised local and national conversations around the need for a balanced approach that ensures the safety and well-being of both humans and wildlife. As the Parks and Wildlife Bill continues to be debated, many hope that the lessons from Ncube’s tragic encounter will lead to meaningful reforms that prevent future tragedies and provide adequate support for those who fall victim to such conflicts.